SREEDAM CHANDRA GHOSH versus THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 688 · Decided: 09-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
. SREEDAM CHANDRA GHOSH 
v. 
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Service Law : 
Secondary Education (Provi11cialised Se1vice) Rules, 1982: 
Rules 9, JO( a)--Assista11t Graduate Teacher officiating as .Head 
Master-No order of appointment as such issued-Transfer of Head Master 
to that School from some other School-Challenged by the officiating i11cum-
bent-High Cowt 11egativing the challenge-On appeal held : it was 011ly a 
stop-gap a1ra11gement by which the petitioner was officiating as Head Master 
D till the regular i11cumbent assumed office as Head Mastel'-Hence he has 110 
right to the post after the regular incumbent has bee11 transfen-ed t~ the 
post-'-Asking the petitioner to hand over the charge to the new i11cumbent does 
not aniount to demotion or p1111ishment-Si11ce the petitioner stood in the way -
of e11forceme11t of the transfer order passed by the competent authority, High 
Court has rightly given appropriate directions to the Director to enforce the 
E orders and take suitable actio11 agai11st the ening officers-Assam Civil Service 
(Discipline a11d Appeal) Rules. 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 16986 of 1996. 
-
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.96 of the Assam High 
Court in W.A. No. 165 of 1996. 
N.N. Karmakar, S.C. Ghosh and Somnath Mukherjee for ,the 
Petitioner. 
j 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This special leave petition has been filed against the judgment and 
order. of the Gauhati High Court made on May 29, 1996 in W.A. No. 165/96 
confirming the order of the learned single Judge. While the petitioner was 
H working as an Assistant Graduate Teacher in Kahilipara High Schoo~ a 
688 
; • 
S.C. GHOSH v. STATE 
689 
regular incumbent of the high school one Keshablal Kanjilal had retired A 
from service on 11.1.1995. The petitioner being the senior-most Assistant 
Graduate Teacher was asked to officiate in the post till a new incumbent 
takes charge. The Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District circle, Gauhati by 
his proceedings dated 18.1.1995 asked the petitioner to discharge the 
additional duties as headmaster in addition to his duty as a school Assistant B 
Graduate Teacher authorising to draw and disbursement of the salaries. 
One Mukul Chandra Roy, a regular headmaster working in Pranab 
Bidyapity High School at Lumding of Nagaon district has been transferred 
by order date 15.2.1996 to the incumbent post in which the petitioner is 
officiating. This transfer order came to be challenged by the petitioner in 
the High Court contending that he was promoted as headmaster on regular 
basis, therefore, Mukul Chandra Roy cannot be transferred in his place. 
The learned single Judge and the Division Bench had held that there was 
no order of appointment to the petitioner promoting him on regular basis 
c 
as headmaster; he was continuing as an officiating headmaster; the 
petitioner, therefore, has no right to the post as headmaster and that the D 
transfer order, therefore, was held to be implementable. Since the order 
of transfer was not being complied with, the High Court had directed the 
Director of Education to take disciplinary action against the persons 
responsible for noncompliance thereof. Calling that order in question, this 
special leave petition has been filed. 
Shri N.N. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner l;las contended 
that the Division Bench of the High Court was wrong in placing reliance 
on Rule 9 of the Secondary Education (Provincialised Service) Rules, 1982. 
It would apply only in a case where regular recruitment by promotion is to 
E 
be made. Rule lO(a) would be applicable to the petitioner. The post was F 
upgraded by asking the petitioner to officiate and that, therefore, he is 
entitled to continue in the post. We find no force in the contention. The 
learned counsel has read out Rule lO(a) with all the conditions prescribed 
therein. It is only a procedural part for consideration of tlie claims of the 
eligible candidates for promotion to the post of headmaster. The list is to 
be drawn by the competent authority, with a recommendation to the Public G 
Service Commission or the Committee, as the case may be, was to consider 
the respective claims. After receipt of such list, the claims are to be 
considered by the Public Service Commission or the Committee, as the 
case may be, within one month from the date of the receipt of the list an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.